From 3 June 2025 the Employment Court will start publishing its judgments from 24 hours after the delivery date, or the next business day, unless otherwise directed by a judge. Decisions of public interest may be published earlier, as directed by a judge.

You can search by selecting a jurisdiction, a keyword (for example a name) or browse by year.

Some jurisdictions only publish a selection of decisions. Identifying details may be removed.

Search results for costs.

3339 items matching your search terms

  1. TH & UH v DM & MT [2022] NZDT 262 (5 December 2022) [PDF, 218 KB]

    Contract / Applicants purchased a puppy for $5000 from Respondents / Applicants returned puppy to Respondents / Respondents found a new owner for the puppy / Applicants claimed $4999 from Respondents / Held: Respondents breached contract as they did not take reasonable endeavours to try and sell the puppy / Factors considered for compensation amount included the puppy was not defective, no guarantee of sale of puppy, likely that older puppies are less expensive, new owner incurred costs and Respondents had incurred expenses / Applicants should be compensated $750 for breach of contract / Claim granted.
  2. GO v HO [2022] NZDT 213 (2 December 2022) [PDF, 138 KB]

    Negligence / Land Transport Road User Rule 2004 / Applicant and Respondent collided at an intersection / Applicant’s insurance company sought recovery of repair costs / Respondent claimed Applicant did not keep a proper look out / Held: each party contributed to collision / Primary responsibility lay with Respondent as it was his decision to park in front of a car to one side, away from direction of travel / Applicant also failed to keep a proper look out / Responsibility lies 60% with Respondent and 40% with Applicant / Respondent ordered to pay $1,175.72 to Applicant’s insurer / Claim granted in part.
  5. NX Ltd v BH Ltd [2022] NZDT 238 (1 December 2022) [PDF, 104 KB]

    Contract / Applicant ordered metal profiles from Respondents and paid contract price in full / Order too large and was to be sent in two shipping containers / Second part of the order did not leave Respondent’s warehouse and alternative transport arrangements were not made / Respondent could not find order when contacted / Applicant claims they cannot use the product anymore as it has expired / Held: Product is to be made for collection immediately by Respondent / Respondent will need to recoat the metal / Respondent to pay Applicant if product is not available to be collected / Respondent to pay Applicant $4000 if product not available / Claim allowed.
  6. L Ltd v N Ltd [2022] NZDT 247 (30 November 2022) [PDF, 236 KB]

    Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA) / Applicant provided Respondent with valuation / Both parties agreed on price / Respondent’s customer decided not to get goods replaced through Applicant / Applicant claims $23,310.00 in lost profits / Applicant claims Respondent is in breach of contract / Held: Respondents in breach of contract / Respondents liable for Applicant’s loss of profit / Respondents to pay Applicant $15,000.00 / Claims for legal costs and filing fees dismissed / Claim partially upheld.
  8. VS v WN [2022] NZDT 221 (30 November 2022) [PDF, 113 KB]

    Contract / Respondent contracted Appellant to supply and install windows and doors for total sum of $30,466.00 / workmen found additional work necessary to fulfil original contract / Respondent and Appellant agreed to extra work being added to contract price / Respondent was unable to get bank loans necessary to fund extra work / Respondent cancelled contract / Appellant claims $3,615.94 for work already done / Respondent claims contract conditional upon financing / Held: Contract is enforceable and is not subject to Respondent’s ability to get financing / Respondent to pay Appellant $3,615.94 / Claim granted.
  9. LU v CE Ltd [2022] NZDT 235 (30 November 2022) [PDF, 115 KB]

    Contract / Applicant’s vehicle broke down and asked Respondent to tow for inspection / Applicant and Respondent had a miscommunication regarding repair of vehicle / Applicant requested Respondent to tow vehicle back to her home / Applicant financed another vehicle / Applicant claims $1611 in loss of transportation and income / Respondent counter claims $608.35 for spare parts / Held: No agreement had been reached by the Respondent and Applicant about the repair cost of the vehicle / Applicant is liable to pay the towage and inspection fees only / Respondent not liable to pay loss of transportation and income of Applicant / Applicant to pay Respondent $391 / Claim partly dismissed.
  12. SS v SH [2022] NZDT 230 (29 November 2022) [PDF, 113 KB]

    Contract / Consumers Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent contracted to install flat pack kitchen and quoted $3,500 for installation / Applicant and Respondent discussed extra time taken for installation / Respondent indicated cost would be 30% more than original quote / Applicant claims final invoice was unreasonable / Held: Terms of the contract should have been expressly clear / Respondent should have ensured that he communicated costs to Applicant / Applicant to pay Respondent $3,000 / claim dismissed.
  13. ED v CC [2022] NZDT 228 (25 November 2022) [PDF, 206 KB]

    Contract / Respondent contacted the Applicant regarding purchase of quail eggs and quails / Email communication ensued between the parties regarding quail purchase / Proposal to send eggs was sent by Applicant which the Respondent did not respond to / Applicant claimed $70 from Respondent for eggs and freight costs / Whether there was a contract between the parties / Whether the Applicant was entitled to payment for the eggs and freight costs / Held: no contract was formed / Acceptance of an offer had to be communicated to the offeror for it to be effective / Respondent expressed a willingness to proceed with negotiations / Not enough to amount to a concluded contract / Claim dismissed.
  14. LCRO 103/2021 & LCRO 58/2022, LCRO 104/2021 and LCRO 105/2021 GS v ABC Ltd & HY, [Law Firm A] v ABC Ltd & HY and SW v [Area] Standards Committee [X] (24 November 2022) [PDF, 595 KB]

    Review / Committee found unsatisfactory conduct / commercial property matter / lawyers made a number of strategic errors that was costly for the complainant / complainant was poorly advised / lawyers’ failed to identify appropriate legal remedies / lawyers paid little attention to the possible consequences when providing advice / excessive fees / lawyers continued illegality argument instead of focusing on alternative remedies / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, section 12(c) / section 152(2)(b) / section 156(1)(f) / section 156(1)(i) / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 9.1 / rule 9.1(c) / HELD / more comprehensive assessment of risk factors was required / indication of litigation risk should to be thoroughly explained / lawyer’s failed to be sufficiently responsive to changing circumstances / lawyer’s failed to ensure complainant was adequately informed as to her costs exposure / significant sum of costs to incur in defending proceedings…
  17. FQ v T Ltd [2022] NZDT 248 (24 November 2022) [PDF, 103 KB]

    Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased caravan from Respondent / Applicant contracted with Respondent to deliver caravan / Delivery costs was $4,000.00 / Caravan had insect infestation / Applicant attempted to clean up infestation / Respondent assisted with insect cleaning / Applicant asked for refund / Respondent agreed conditional upon Applicant returning caravan / Cost of return was $6,000.00 / Applicant claimed supplied goods not up to standard / Applicant sought delivery costs and return total $10,000.00 / Held: Respondent supplied goods that were not up to standard / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $10,000.00 / Applicant to return caravan to Respondent / Claim granted.
  18. W Ltd v NC [2022] NZDT 210 (24 November 2022) [PDF, 99 KB]

    Negligence / Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 / Applicant was towing a trailer / Respondent was following Applicant / Applicant and Respondent collided / Applicant claimed she indicated to turn, however had disconnected the plug between her car and trailer lights / Respondent did not see the indicator or brake lights / Respondent insurer claimed $18,203.62 for the cost of repairing Applicant's vehicle / Held: not being able to see the brake lights and indicator on the trailer was a major contributing factor to collision / Applicant should have used a hand signal to show she was turning / Applicant must bear the majority of the costs according to their respective contribution being 75:25 / Applicant ordered to Respondent's insurance company $13,650.00 / Claim granted in part.
  19. IX v HG [2022] NZDT 224 (23 November 2022) [PDF, 91 KB]

    Negligence / Respondent kicked in panels on Applicant’s car / Respondent also filled Applicant's petrol vehicle up with diesel / Applicant claimed compensation for the costs of repairing the petrol tank and panels / Applicant's car subsequently stolen / Held: Applicant's car was stolen and there is therefore no hope of it ever being repaired / It would be artificial to award Applicant compensation for repairs which will never be done / Claim dismissed.
  20. VN v SC Ltd [2022] NZDT 240 (23 November 2022) [PDF, 102 KB]

    Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2007 / Applicant contracted Respondent to build deck / The agreement was to pay 25% of contract price before works commence, another 25% once work has started and 50% after work is completed / Respondent asked for advance payment to acquire materials / Applicant paid a total of $7,500 / Respondent did not complete build / Applicant claims $6,000 refund / Held: The contract terms were that the Applicant would pay 25% before and during the construction of the deck and 50% after completion / Respondent did not complete its obligations to Applicant / Respondent to pay $6,000 to Applicant / Claim allowed.
  21. [2022] NZREADT 26 He & An (22 November 2022) [PDF, 253 KB]

    Penalty / misconduct / first licensee guilty (s73b) for sending draft agreement to another licensee without deleting previous signatures and not ensuring new signatures were obtained / second licensee guilty (s73b) for failing to check whether he had consent to insert signatures / Real Estate Agents Act 2008, s3, s91, s110 / Professional Rules 2012, r5.1, r6.1, r6.3 / HELD / first licensee / two prior adverse disciplinary findings relevant / admitted wrongdoing early and co-operated / conduct at moderate to higher level / while not deliberate or dishonest, same outcome / first licensee censured / ordered to pay $10,000 financial penalty / second licensee / no prior disciplinary history / voluntary suspension of licence relevant / denied involvement for significant period before admitting wrongdoing / similar seriousness to first licensee / second licensee censured / ordered to pay $4,000 financial penalty / 50 per cent costs ($2,839), split evenly
  23. WC & SD v CT Ltd [2022] NZDT 198 (21 November 2022) [PDF, 203 KB]

    Contract / Applicants contracted the Respondent to cater their wedding / Applicants paid a thirty percent deposit on quoted price of $3325 / Wedding postponed due to Covid restrictions / Respondent agreed to change wedding date / Applicants unsuccessfully attempted to contact the Respondent regarding the catering closer to the date / Eventually Respondent advised that he had retired due to Covid difficulties / Applicants advised Respondent that they wished to cancel the contract and obtain a refund / Whether the Applicants were entitled to a refund / Held: amount paid by the Applicants was more than a reasonable deposit / Applicants not advised of any specific cancellation terms and conditions / Applicants experienced difficulties communicating with the Respondent / Respondent ordered to pay $997.50 / Claim granted.
  24. H Ltd v HF & OF [2022] NZDT 217 (16 November 2022) [PDF, 208 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant entered into contract with Respondent to provide price estimate for reclad of Respondent's property / Applicant claimed work has been completed and Respondent had not paid final invoice / Respondent claimed Applicant failed to provide services with reasonable care and skill / Applicant claimed $17,391.39 for outstanding invoice and legal costs / Held: Respondents failed to prove on balance of probabilities that work completed was in breach of statutory guarantees / Respondents breached second agreement by failing to pay invoices / Applicant not entitled to award of legal costs / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $14,293.58 / Claim allowed in part.

You can try using these keywords to search the whole site.